I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

The Verdict Is In: The Battle Of Big v. Small Government Will End In Blue Victory

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The war over the size of government—one that began in the modern era with the arrival of President Ronald Wilson Reagan and has represented the front lines of the ideological battle between Democrats, Republicans and, of late, Tea Party devotees—appears, at long last, to be coming to an end.

If you are a small government Republican, you may wish to look away as you will likely not be happy with the outcome.

Consider that, despite presiding over a deeply distressed, slow-growing economy, Barack Obama—a man who has never shied away from his belief that big government can and should be a positive force in society—was re-elected to a second term. And while the President’s political opponents prefer to cast blame for their loss on just about every and any excuse they can muster, the simple truth is that Obama’s victory is—for better or for worse—a reflection of the mindset of a nation that has grown weary of the fight and has seen enough to make its collective decision in favor of a more active and impactful central government.

Obama’s victory should have been a large clue to anyone interested in where the public really stands on the question of big government.

However, in case you missed the message, the President drove it home when he delivered an inaugural address dripping with progressive themes—a message that will be continued in Tuesday’s State of the Union where Obama is expected to focus, in no small part, on the historic, out-of-control income inequality that grips the nation and threatens the great middle-class with permanent extinction.

The President understands what most of his adversaries are missing. It’s no longer about battling for ideology as the battle has wound down and his side has emerged victorious. The only question is how long it will take those who would see it differently to catch on.

In choosing to confront the growing gap between the wealthy and working class Americans, President Obama is expected to proclaim—to anyone willing to open their minds and actually hear him—big business’ failure to deliver on the promise of free enterprise that has left it to government to defend hard working Americans, including those who think that government is out to get them, never understanding the nature of their true adversary.

For a shrinking number of Americans, the President’s SOTU speech will only be heard as further proof that the nation is divided between ‘takers’ and ‘makers’—those who back big government because they are unwilling to do the work necessary to support their families when the government will do it for them versus those who appreciate the American values of success through hard work.

But anyone who is quick to accept the ‘taker’ versus ‘maker’ narrative is left to miss the verdict of a public that has increasingly come to understand a more legitimate truth—that big business does not have the interest of the average, hard working American in mind and that government is the only chance they’ve got to be properly rewarded for the hard work they contribute.

It didn’t have to be this way.

While Americans continue to greatly respect the notion of free markets and honor the ability of those who can create the great enterprises with potential to take us all along for the ride, in the final analysis, Americans have come to understand that they have no choice but to trust government more than they trust business.

This writing was on the wall for all to see when, almost one year ago, Pew Research conducted a national survey that—had more people paid attention—would have not only cleared up a great deal of confusion among the punditocracy as they sought to get a grip on who would be the next President but would have revealed to anyone taking notice that the war was coming to an end.

As a part of the survey, Pew posed the following statement for response—a posit that cut right to the heart of the choice between big and small government:

“A free market economy needs government regulation in order to best serve the public interest.”

The response was more telling than any bit of data I’ve seen in a very long time as a whopping 63 percent of respondents agreed with the statement while only 31 percent disagreed. Americans, in very large numbers, affirmed their believe that the public interest is served by government regulating the free market because Americans overwhelmingly trust in government more than they trust in business.

And why shouldn’t they?

What too many have failed to acknowledge or understand for too long is the simple premise that it was big business that created big government.

If manufacturing companies had avoided the urge to increase their profits by taking short cuts that led them to spew harmful chemicals into the air or dump toxic byproducts into the waterways that serve as the source of our drinking water, President Richard Nixon, a Republican, would never have been inspired to sign the executive order—ratified by Congress—that created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Certainly you could be right- but I’m inclined to believe that this trend does not change until business begins to take a more responsible approach to employees and their communities. I actually don’t think that its about the current government’s policies-with the exception of things like Social Security and Medicare which people seem to want to protect-but rather a fundamental belief that business will continue to rig the game against the middle class and government is the only possible protection. As I said, if business changes their approach, they can certainly change this trajectory.

Maybe-but I don’t base the conclusion so much on the Obama victory as I do in what people believe about government being the only protection they have in a climate where business sacrifices decent wages and community responsibility in order to produce quarterly results that boost share values. When business changes, I suspect the public will become more comfortable with trusting in business and government will, indeed, shrink.

Mr. Ungar, Your worldview is fundamentally at odds with mine. The real protections from the problems you identify are GROWTH and PROSPERITY. That is what generates the wealth that can be used to ameliorate the material ills of the human condition. But Govt does not create wealth. Govt only consumes and redistributes wealth. M. Obama’s big govt plans are going to fail: he will run out of other people’s money to spend as surely as all of his socialist forebears have run out. He can confiscate today’s wealth but he cannot force the producers of wealth to get up tomorrow and make more of it.

You and others speak of the pressing problem of income inequality. Has it occurred to you that the deadly sin of envy is at the root of M. Obama’s agenda? Mark my words: no good result can come of this. Equality of misery is the best we can hope for under his ideas. Some future!

So your main complaint is that companies aren’t paying their employees enough? Really? I’m going to assume that you mean the employees that are earning the minimum wage.

Rick, have you seen the latest teen unemployment rate? I don’t know what it is, but it’s HUGE. Black teenage unemployment is close to 50%, yes Rick, you heard me right, 50%!

Wanna know why? In 2007 the minimum wage was $5.15/hr. Now it’s $7.25/hr. Now I’m going to ask you a question (and I’m going to assume you took Economics 101). Does demand increase or decrease when the price goes up?

William Even (Miami University of Ohio) and David MacPherson (Trinity University) completed a 2010 study that found that the $2.10/hr. increase in the minimum wage caused teem employment to drop by 6.8%. Those teens with less than a 12th grade education, by 12.4%. For teens who are priced out the labor market, their wage fell to ZERO. Rick, this “price control,” while well-meaning, is a miserable failure.

You need to make a choice right now. Do you want a higher minimum wage, accompanied by higher unemployment, or do you want a smaller minimum wage accompanied with less unemployment? Your choice . . .

Sorry, but I don’t ‘need’ to do anything simply because it frustrates you. Fascinating that you choose to base your argument on TEEN unemployment. Are you kidding me? This is what you want to hinge your argument on? Teens? I don’t know many teens who have to house and feed a family and provide for their healthcare needs. Do you? What you also fail to grasp when insisting that I make a choice right now, is that it is a hugely false choice which only serves to support the precise point made in this particular argument. If a wage earner cannot support his family, does it matter if that individual cannot afford to buy health insurance because they are $100 a month short or $500 a month short. They still can’t pay for their kid should that kid get sick, now can they? But yeah…the really big problem is teenage unemployment! Honestly, I don’t know why I bother responding to this sort of argument.

Your arguments are correct for now but when government continues to grow at the cost of liberty and freedom change will come. It will be slow, painful, and possibly bloody. Many nations in the past have gone through similar circumstances with people in revolt. This is because the choice in not between big government or big business, it is between big government and its people. This administration claims to be concerned for the middle class but operates more like a path to dictatorship.

I would have to disagree. The scenario you paint comes to pass when the population opposes it’s government. As you appear to concede, this is not the case. Now, I suppose it could, someday, become the case however I have a bit more faith in this country. If we don’t like where it goes we will do what we have always done-change it by the ballot box. I wouldn’t imagine that I would dissuade you from the perspective that we are on some road to dictatorship, but we are not. That argument has been made for as many years as we have been in existence. When a percentage of the population doesn’t like the president-as is always the case-they argue that we are on the road to a king or dictatorship. Might I remind you of the Nixon years when part of the population feared that Nixon was going to violently take control of the government rather than leave? Or, for a more recent example, do you need me to provide you with all the articles that were being written suggesting that it was President Bush, under the control of Dick Cheney, who was seeking to become a dictator. Just google “Bush” and ‘dictator” and you can see if for yourself. And yet, here we are, with another president and just different people crying dictator. Our government will survive as a republic long after the name Barack Obama, or George Bush or any other past president fades from memory.

Rick, You are right again, but in part. We have never before had a president who claims the right, (nearly unchallenged), to kill American citizens. So far this is said to be those who pose a threat to the country. The sticking point is who decides what and who contitutes this “threat”. The words and actions of Obama make him a threat to our liberty and possibly our freedom. If Obama deemed you a “threat” you would sing another song.

Actually, it is not true that we have never had a president who claimed the right to kill Americans. While I am a strong proponent of an appropriate judicial procedure before a President can take the action Obama took (on foreign soil by the way), its hard to believe that you view Obama as a greater threat to our liberty and freedom than a terrorist-even if American born-who wanted to kill your family. Come on…be honest..are you really sorry to see this terrorist who attempted to kill lots of folks in Detroit via the underwear bomber and had plans for lots more carnage gone from the planet? Again, I agree in a stronger process before this can be done, but I like rational rather than irrational.

Although I see your point I would disagree in some areas. Obama won the election because of the rigid Romney bashing. The lower informed voters and their sheer numbers indicate its all about the show. Obama put on a better show with empty words, blatant lies, and a massive 9/11 Benghazi scandal cover-up. “We need to act on common sense”, what the heck is common sense, can you define it for me? “Fair and Balanced”, more empty words with little to no meaning or definition. The general public eats it up and has no idea what it means.

Had the US known about Benghazi, had Romney questioned it, had the media aside from Fox questioned it, and had Sandy not taken away from Romney’s momentum, this would be an entirely different discussion. Romney lost though, and we are stuck in the direction of liberalism and a socialist America where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave. If the larger more populous areas of the nation don’t give us a clue of where we are headed (liberal giants like CA and NY) this is what we should all be afraid of.

Its not corporations fault big government is growing, I believe its complacency setting in. Its the general public’s misunderstanding of responsibility and freedom. Its special interest groups getting mixed into politics. It is many things but the overall message of your article is a sheer guess. I do hope you are wrong but I also fear you may be right.